Posted on 01/17/2012 10:03:54 AM PST by mnehring
(Videos at link)
Last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul some problems in the “honesty” department.
Mr. Paul‘s truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News’ Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden:
There‘s just one small problem with Paul’s denial, he did say it, several times.
Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.
Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;
So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?
And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:
I don’t think it was necessary. No.
Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman”
So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?
Ron Paul’s response was consistent with his two previous answers.
Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments.
Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.
That clip from WHO Newsradio 1040 appeared on The Blaze on May 11th.
For those interested in the entire question and answer on the topic of the bin Laden killing, we offer this clip, posted by fans of Ron Paul. The portion under scrutiny begins at the 7:40 mark.
Just because it is on video doesn’t make it true - do you neocons believe everything you see and hear with your own eyes and ears? And besides that - Paul is a constitutionalist, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
alterPaul denies all of his crazy words, even when there is massive evidence that he did and said what he said, he and his rabid supports deny it, if it doesn’t fit into their delusion of who the guy is.
You forgot- that isn’t really Tehran Ron on the video, that’s his ghostwriter.
Click: http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/listenlive/ at 4PM Central time - I’m sure Simon will be discussing this.
I like him the least.
Paul says that OBL was unarmed? I guess the AK-47 in his bedroom didn’t count as a weapon.
According to R-U-N Paul, the 9/11/01 attacks against the U.S. were the result of our own misdeeds. Thus, it’s doubtful a Preisdent Paul in 2001 would have engaged in military strikes against the Taliban or Al Queda. Paul is a kook of the Kucinich type.
Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)
I wonder if he received a drool cup for a Christmas gift. Mentally, he’s just a step away from that.
Think about this for a moment.
The United States kills Osama Bin Laden.
The Taliban are silent.
The citizens of Pakistan are silent.
The government of Pakistan is silent.
The U. N. is silent.
The global governments are silent.
The Left in the United States is silent.
The Leftist media in the United States is silent.
Then Ron Paul jumps in to object.
Ron, crawl back under your rock. Don’t do it for me. Do it for your family and yourself.
Ron Paul, if one thing, is consistent. He holds the Libertarian views that the government should be small, not interfere with the economy, only do essential duties that the private sector can’t do such as infrastructure as roads and bridges and keep order by a justice system with predictable outcomes. Most conservatives hold similar ideas.
The Libertarian idea conservatives have a problem with is the idea that our country should stick with problems here and not engage in misadventures abroad, either by pushing democracy or by military intervention. Libertarians believe if a foreign people are dumb enough to have a dictator or nut case ruler, that’s their problem, not ours. Libertarians also believe unless our nation is directly threatened, don’t attack another land or people.
As a conservative I support our military and do believe we have key allies that we need to support, Canada, the U.K. and Israel. It’s the Israel one that gets the Islamists against us, but we can’t let Israel and its people get wiped off the map. Ron Paul doesn’t either as he figures Israel is tough enough to survive without our troops. Whether he is too soft on Islamists is a perception you or I have to figure out. I do believe if Paul is the GOP candidate he will lose to Obama and if Paul runs 3rd party, the GOP candidate will lose.
I’ve never seen anyone in my entire life with such a combination of brilliant and idiotic ideas.
So in Jefferson’s time the islamist where against us because of Israel?
alterPaul is not constant, he is a fraud.
for later
Ron Paul is nuttier than squirrel poop - and so is anyone who supports him!
Ron Paul serves as proof that a mental health evaluation needs to be administered to every potential political candidate - regardless of party - with the results being made available for public fodder.
We all get upset when we see pictures of Obama bowing to foreign leaders. Ron Paul, if he met Osama bin Laden or Ahmadinajad, would go straight to his knees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.